Supreme Court Cases

UNITED STATES V LOPEZ, 1995

Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release. Question Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause? DECISIONS: Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity

Baker v. Carr (1961)

Charles Baker "Equal protection of the laws" under the 14th Amendment state lawmakers ignored that requirement of redrawing district lines and refused to redraw the districts. Baker sued the state officials responsible for supervising elections in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Tenessee Legislature (did not want) revise the legislative district lines every 10 years to account for changes in population. Baker sued the state officials responsible for supervising elections in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Supreme court decided to hear Baker's case. Baker To sue the state officials responsible for supervising elections state of Tennessee argued that courts could not provide a solution for this issue because this was a "political question" that federal courts could not decide. Baker appealed that decision up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case. Since... "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases," federal courts have the authority to enforce the requirement of equal protection of the law against state officials. After... the justices instructed the District Court to allow a hearing for Baker's claim, dozens of federal courts will allow disgruntled residents to try to prove that legislative districts are unconstitutionally unbalanced. Although the Court did not decide whether Tennessee's districts actually were unconstitutional, the justices instructed the District Court to allow a hearing on the merits of Baker's claim that the state's legislative districts violated his 14th Amendment rights. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... federal courts have the authority to enforce the requirement of equal protection of the law against state officials— including, ultimately, the state legislature itself—if the legislative districts that the state creates are so disproportionally weighted as to deny the residents of the overpopulated districts equivalent treatment with underpopulated districts. The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... They saw no reason for federal courts to decide these types of cases. Because they found nothing in the Constitution that would require states to draw districts in a particular manner, there was no basis for federal courts to interfere with a political task that the Constitution left to the state legislatures. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... That course established a precedent that dozens of federal courts later followed in allowing disgruntled residents to try to prove that legislative districts are unconstitutionally unbalanced. the Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Despite Baker suing for more approprite redistribtuion of lines, the case overall foretold of the courts role, if they could be invovled in such "political" questions. The decision involved enforcing that lower courts can hold cases such as these on trial, and not be dismissed.

Schenck v. United States (1918)

Charles T. Schenck wanted oppose the implementation of a military draft in the country. the Espionage Act he was convicted on three counts and sentenced to 10 years in prison for each count. socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer to distribute some 15,000 leaflets that called for men who were drafted to resist military service. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment. US wanted protect the US from enemy dangers and protect the populous by limiting freedom of speech through the Espionage Act socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets urging the public to disobey the draft, Schenck was arrested for violating the Espionage Act. Since the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority, courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake. After the court abandoned the clear and present danger rule and instead utilized an earlier-devised "bad [or dangerous] tendency" doctrine, which enabled speech to be limited even more broadly. Although the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent.. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... The Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... the Espionage Act of 1917 remained active & was utilized to place nearly 2,000 individuals under trial.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Chicago to ban handguns to combat crime and minimize handgun related deaths and injuries. The registration process was complex, and possession of an unregistered firearm was a crime. In practice, most Chicago residents were banned from possessing handguns. Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents sued the city for violating the Constitution. Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents to possess handguns, thus sued the city of Chicago The federal district courtand Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Chicago McDonald asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do so. Since the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is fully applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Otis McDonald. After the court case Heller, the Court recognized that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. Although the Court deciding that the right to keep and bear arms among the fundamental rights, reasonable gun restrictions—such as a ban on felons owning guns or on carrying guns on school property—would still be allowed. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is fully applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment. The Court considered whether the right to keep guns "is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice." The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented. He argued that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... The importance of McDonald v. Chicago has to do with the fact that Constitutional rights don't automatically apply to state and local governments. So, even though the decision in DC v. Heller had granted individuals the right to own operative had guns in their home in the District of Columbia, it was the McDonald decision that extended this right to state and local governments. The decision was based on the principle of "selective incorporation" of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Citizens United to broadcast Hillary: The Movie and to broadcast TV advertisements for the movie in advance. The Federal Election Commission said that Hillary: The Movie was intended to influence voters, and, therefore, the BCRA applied. That meant that the organization was not allowed to advertise the film or pay to air it within 30 days of a primary election. Citizens United sued the FEC in federal court, asking to be allowed to show the film. The Federal Election Commission to prevent corporations and unions from directly paying for advertisements that supported or denounced a specific candidate within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election through the BCRA law. Citizens United, a non-profit organization funded partially by corporate donations, produced Hillary: The Movie, wanted to broacast a film created to persuade voters not to vote for Hillary Clinton as the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. So the FEC ruled that the movie would not be allowed to be advertised or aired within 30 days of primary elections. Since the First Amendment prohibits limits on corporate funding of independent broadcasts in candidate elections,the Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. After the ruling of this court case, The Court reversed two earlier decisions that held that political speech by corporations may be limited (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC). Although the First Amendment is to protect the freedom of speech, this includes the political speech of corporations. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Moreover, the Court said, corporations have free speech rights and their political speech cannot be restricted any more than that of individuals. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that political speech is "indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation." The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... Justice Stevens, writing for the dissenters, said that the First Amendment protects people, not corporations. The dissenters felt that the government should be allowed to ban corporate money because it could overwhelm the debate and drown out non-corporate voices. Without such limits, corporations' wealth could give them unfair influence in the electoral process and lead to elections where corporate domination of the airwaves would decrease the average voter's exposure to different viewpoints. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... The decision in Citizens United held that political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is a form of free speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United and similar cases have reduced the limits on campaign contributions, encouraged the creation of Super PACs, and increased debate over the role money can and should play in elections.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. Question Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived. Justice Douglas, while joining the Court's opinion, elaborated, in a separate opinion, the relation between the Bill of Rights and the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

MCCULLOCH V MARYLAND, 1819

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank. Question Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR MCCULLOCH: Maryland may not impose a tax on the bank. Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to charter the second Bank of the United States. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Section 8), Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Marshall redefined "necessary" to mean "appropriate and legitimate," covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by the enumerated powers. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Linda Brown, a third grader attend a school attended by white children segregation of schools was still legal Oliver Brown, encouraged by NAACP chief counsel Thurgood Marshall, brought suit against the Topeka school district African American students access to white schools, to attend white schools, to desegregate public education the plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal the case was brought to the Supreme Court. Since the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children, separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal . After the Court agreed with Thurgood Marshall and his fellow NAACP lawyers that segregated schooling violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of law, the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and outlawed segregation. Although the Court's ruling applied only to public schools , its declaration that "separate" is "inherently unequal" served as a reminder that not only in schools, but in all aspects of life, the separation of black and white Americans signaled an "inherently unequal" status between them. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal. violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... unanimous Court The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... Though the Court's ruling applied only to public schools, its declaration that "separate" is "inherently unequal" served as a reminder that not only in schools, but in all aspects of life, the separation of black and white Americans signaled an "inherently unequal" status between them. As such segregation did not measure up to the nation's founding ideal that "all men are created equal."

New York Times Co. v. United States

Nixon Administration to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing classified materials about Vietnam New York Times published the first chapter of the Pentagon Papers. case reached the Supreme Court in June 1971. The New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers, top-secret information about US involvement in Vietnam, Nixon administration then issued federal injunctions against publishing the remainder of the Pentagon Papers to both the New York Times and the Washington Post. Thus the Richard administration sued the New York Times Co, and the case went to the Supreme Court Since the federal government was seeking to prevent publication of a document, it was ruled the Nixon administration did violate the First Amendment. After the Court ruled that the US government had not met "the heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement" of prior restraint, the Court ordered the immediate end of the injunctions against publication. Although the Supreme Court has, at times, ruled that the government can restrict speech that presents a "clear and present danger," it does not justify his administration enforcing censorship upon the press. Since the publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... that in the haste of the proceedings, and given the size of the documents, the Court was unable to gather enough information to make a decision. He also argued that the Times should have discussed the possible societal repercussions with the Government prior to publication of the material. lack of attention towards national security and the rights of the Executive. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... In this ruling, the Court established a "heavy presumption against prior restraint," even in cases involving national security. This means that the Court is very likely to find cases of government censorship unconstitutional. New York Times Co. v. United States was a major victory for freedom of the press.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

North Carolina wanted ensure the election of an African-American representative for the House seat, so they created a legislative district that would be majority African-American. The attorney general rejected the North Carolina state legislature's first redistributing plan. The General Assembly (North Carolina's legislature) redrew the district lines to create a second majority-minority district, District 12: densely populated by minority voters into a single district that, small as the highway. Five white voters wanted To file a lawsuit against both state and federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The District Court dismissed the case, concluding that using race-based redistricting to benefit minority voters does not violate the Constitution. The voters appealed to the Supreme Court, which is required by law to hear most redistricting cases. U.S. Department of Justice. Two majority-minority district be created in North Carolina's plan. Five white voters filed a lawsuit against both state and federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Shaw, and sent the case back to the lower court to be reheard. Since... "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", the court decided that if a redistricting plan cannot rationally be understood as anything other than an effort to divide voters based on their race, voters may challenge such a district. After... the court decided that voters could challenge voting districts as racial gerrymanders, the case was sent back to the lower court to determine if the North Carolina plan could be justified in terms other than race. Although... the dissenters argued that consideration of race in the districting process is inevitable, and that it does not violate the Constitution, the majority said that any redistricting plan that includes people in one district who are geographically disparate and share little in common with one another but their skin color, bears a strong resemblance to racial segregation. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... that any redistricting plan that includes people in one district who are geographically disparate and share little in common with one another but their skin color, bears a strong resemblance to racial segregation. The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... That consideration of race in the redistricting process is inevitable, and that it does not violate the Constitution unless the party challenging a district shows that the district was drawn in a way that deprives a racial group of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... If a redistricting plan cannot rationally be understood as anything other than an effort to divide voters based on their race, voters may challenge such a district under the Equal Protection Clause.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

President John Adams wanted Appoint judges from his party before the other party took office John Marshall failed to deliver 17 of the commissions to the appointees William Marbury did not receive his commission and become appointed as a judge. William Marbury To be appointed as a judge and take office Thomas Jefferson, the succeeding president, did not deliver the failed to be sent commissions William Marbury sued James Madison and asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring Madison to deliver the commission. Since Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given in Article III, Court did not have the authority to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury in this case. After Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court established a key power of the Supreme Court that continues to shape the institution today: judicial review. Although The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court to "issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office under the authority of the United States" as a matter of its original Jurisdiction, Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, as the Court read it, authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction only in certain cases and Marbury v. Madison is not under that umbrella. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE... The Court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. In the opinion, written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that according to the Constitution, the Court did not have the authority to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury in this case. The majority of justices reached this decision SO.... This decision established the judicial branch as an equal partner with the executive and legislative branches within the government, with the power to rule actions of the other branches unconstitutional. The ruling said that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and established the Supreme Court as the final authority for interpreting it.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Roe, texas resident terminate her pregnancy by abortion Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. Roe instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. Texas to maintain the sancitity of human life by prohibiting abortions Roe, texas resident wanted to terminate her pregnancy by abortion The Supreme Court heard the case. Since a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy, woman gained total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester . After the first trimester, there are different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. Although the case repeaed multiple challenges, but it was not overturned. For example, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an "undue burden" on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... In his dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist argued that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize, and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman's decision to have an abortion. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... In Roe v. Wade, the Court extended the right of privacy to the decision to have an abortion. The right to privacy is not unlimited, however: the decision in Roe recognized that the government may regulate abortion in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy due to compelling state interests in maternal health and potential life. This document, The Fourteenth Amendment, is related because the majority opinion that women have autonomy over the first trimester of their pregnancy is based upon the right of privacy, which is established through the 14th Amendment.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Two Jewish families (including Stephen Engel), a member of the American Ethical Union, a Unitarian, and a non-religious person to rid of the required prayer the New York courts upheld the prayer the objecting families asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, and the Court agreed to hear it. New York State Board of Regents to create a voluntary morning prayer within New York schools a group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. the case was taken to the Supreme Court to be heard. Since the prayer violated the Establishment Clause,the school-sponsored prayer was unconstitutional. After the ruling was issued, students were still free to pray at school on their own time, but school leaders or state officials cannot lead students in prayer. Although the prayer was voluntary, the prayer was still a religious activity composed by government officials (school administrators) and used as a part of a government program (school instruction) to advance religious beliefs. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... The official prayer violated the Establishment Clause. Specifically, the policy breached the constitutional wall of separation between church and state. the effect of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from setting up a particular religious sect of church as the "official" church, thus violating the First Amendment, religous freedom. The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... Justice Stewart dissented, arguing that no "official religion" was established by permitting those who want to say a prayer to say it. He emphasized that the prayer was voluntary and that students were free to choose not to say it. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... In the Engel case, the Supreme Court ruled that the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the government from supporting religion, applied to school-sponsored prayer. In doing so, the Court prioritized the individual liberty to be free of government interference in religion over any government interest in maintaining order.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1968)

five students, ages 13-16, Des Moines, Iowa, to show opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing two-inch-wide black armbands to school for two weeks. school district found out about the students' plan announced a policy that any student who wore a black armband, or refused to take it off, would be suspended from school Mary Beth Tinker, an eighth-grader, and John Tinker and Christopher Eckardt, both high school students, follow the plan and wear the black armbands to their respective schools. all three teens were sent home for violating the announced ban and told not to return until they agreed not to wear the armbands. Their parents filed suit against the school district for violating the students' First Amendment right to free speech. Tha parents of the three high school students to sue the school district for violation of 1st Amendment rights. The federal district court dismissed the case and ruled that the school district's actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court. The Tinkers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, and the Court agreed to hear the case. Since wearing the armbands was a form of speech, because they were intended to express the wearer's views about the Vietnam War, Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers, 7-2. After a precedent was established for freedom of speech within schools, if schools could make a reasonable prediction that the speech would cause a "material and substantial disruption" to the discipline and educational function of the school, then schools may limit the speech. Although the armbands were not ruled as prohibited, The Court stressed that this does not mean that schools can never limit students' speech. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... Justice Hugo L. Black wrote that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. I The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... A precedent was established for freedom of speech within schools. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

state of Wisconsin Frieda Yoder and two other students to attend school until the age of 16 the students had stopped attending school at the end of eighth grade. Mr. Yoder and the other parents were convicted in Wisconsin Circuit Court for their students' truancy (failure to attend compulsory schooling). Mr. Yoder and the other parents of the Amish & Mennonite communities' their children to leave school at the end of eigth grade to maintain their childrens' salvation and keep them infused in their religious daily life The state of Wisconsin convicted the parents for for violating the state's compulsory education law the Yoders appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the grounds that their families' First Amendment free exercise rights were violated. Since that the families' religious beliefs and practices outweighed the state's interests, decided the case unanimously, 7-0, in favor of Yoder. After all, the Amish meet the responsibilities of citizenship without the required additional years of secondary education, thus Wisconsin's argument for their compulsory education law, tha an additional one or two years of high school would shape students into proper citizens, became invalid. Although Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prevented the state of Wisconsin from compelling the respondents to send their children to formal secondary school beyond the age of 14, the justices also noted that nothing in their decision undermined general state compulsory school attendance laws for non-Amish people. The majority of justices reached this decision BECAUSE (the legal reasoning)... The Court ruled that the families' religious beliefs and practices outweighed the state's interests in making the children attend school beyond the eighth grade. The Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the 14th Amendment, prevented the state of Wisconsin from compelling the respondents to send their children to formal secondary school beyond the age of 14. The majority of justices reached this decision BUT (the minority dissent said)... unanimous decision but Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent that stated the majority opinion focused only on the free exercise claims of the parents (the ones who were charged with a crime) and not the children, Justice Douglas would have sent the cases of the other children back to lower courts to learn whether or not the children wanted to attend school past eighth grade. The majority of justices reached this decision SO (the significance).... In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court prioritized free exercise of religion over the state interest in an educated populace. The Court ruled that the individual liberty to worship freely outweighed the state's interest in forcing students to attend school.